Courts

Cheat Sheet
Query Builder
Jurisdiction Selector
Suggestions

Basic Search

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Clear Coverage information Done

All of these words

Any of these words

Exactly this phrase or word

None of these words

This word

Case filed between and

Most recent docket entry filed between and

With deadlines about

Has at least

Party’s Name

Firm

Attorney

Role

Publicly traded

Filter by

Search result types Dockets Documents

Opinions Motions Pleadings Exhibits

Signup
Login
More...
- Signup
- Login
- Features
- Enhance
- Pricing
- News
- About

Information

Search millions of cases and get court filings, fast docket alerts, and case analytics.

To schedule a demo, contact us at sales@docketalarm.com or create your account.

Lawyer? Your firm may have a group account, ask us and we'll let you know.

Click below for detailed party information:

This list may be out of date. Create an account for new case information.

Plaintiffs

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Defendants

Dan Rayfield Jennifer Hall Kathleen Chinn Priyal Patel Richard Joyce Shannon Beaman Victoria Kroeger Amy Kirkbride Ana Pinedo Bryan Smith Rayfield + see more - see less

Other Parties

Oregon Primary Care Association, Intervenor Defendant

Download Docs

Export

Analytics

alt+h	Toggle this page.
alt+u	Toggle Upcoming Events view.
alt+e	Export the docket to Excel.
Filtering / Searching the Docket
ctrl+f	Filter the docket.
ctrl+shift+f	Search docket and documents.
alt+s	Toggle between "Show Only" filtering modes.
alt+d, ctrl+f	System ctrl+f
escape	Clear while in docket filter.
Interactive Timeline
alt+t	Show / re-center case timeline.
alt+↑	Zoom in
alt+↓	Zoom out
alt+←	Pan left
alt+→	Pan right

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Rayfield et al

3:25-cv-02042 | Oregon District Court

Interested in this case?

To schedule a demo, contact us at sales@docketalarm.com. Track this case, and find millions of cases like it, let us show you how.

Division Portland

Judge Judge Karin J. Immergut

Filed Nov. 3, 2025

Case Flags PROTECTIVE ORD

Nature of Suit 950 Constitutionality of State Statute

Cause 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

Jury Demand None

The docket is incomplete. Sign up for verified information.

Filing Date	#	Docket Text
Entries matching. Show All.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Unlimited document access
Unlimited case alerts
Unlimited docket tracking
Unlimited search
Search/filter by motion
For-pay state court docs

$99/mo.

Excludes PACER and Gov’t fees

Pay-As-You-Go Monthly

$4/document
$3/ docket update
$3/day new case alerts
$2/day for docket tracking
$1/search in Fed Courts
For-pay state court docs

$39.99/mo.

Add-ons include Federal Analytics, Easy Analytics, and the Analytics Workbench.

Add your payment information

Need help? Contact us at sales@docketalarm.com.

What is PACER?

PACER is a government system to access US court records.

Why do I need it?

Docket Alarm uses PACER to access Federal Court documents. Under the flat-rate plan, we pass these fees on to your account without markup.

What will I be charged?

If we already have the document in our database, you will not be charged anything. However, if we do not, then we must retrieve it from the court and incur their access fee.

PACER charges $0.10 per page with a 30 page (or $3.00) cap for all documents, except transcripts which have no cap. For example, a five page document is $0.50 and a 50 page document is $3.00. Accessing docket sheets also incurs a fee if we do not already have the full docket sheet (again, max of $3.00). These fees are only incurred for Federal Courts and Bankruptcies.

Do other courts have fees?

Certain state courts, mostly in California, charge for access to some documents. When accessing for-pay state courts, you will always be given an option to accept or decline the payment.

Basic Free Access

We’re committed to keeping the law open. We provide free searches and document/docket views a week for documents already in our system. You have pages left for free viewing.

Note: free views don't apply to documents purchased from government systems, e.g., PACER.

To learn more, contact us at sales@docketalarm.com.

Welcome

Docket Alarm has relationships with many large firms such as yours.

See if your firm has an account

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

Search millions of cases and get court filings, fast docket alerts, and case analytics.

To schedule a demo, contact us at sales@docketalarm.com or create your account.

Lawyer? Your firm may have a group account, ask us and we'll let you know.

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Other Parties

Keyboard shortcuts

Filtering / Searching the Docket

Interactive Timeline

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Rayfield et al

3:25-cv-02042 | Oregon District Court

Interested in this case?

Alert Sharing

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go Monthly

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases